


Y\a\, 



0^ w-y«^ f^fc^x-jwTi^^ 



C U5e^LU-^4*vv fliij 



JK 550 

.fl5 

1912b 

Copy 1 NGRESS, 

ssion. f 1 No. 885. 



\ 

ONE SIX- YEAR PRESIDENTIAL TERM. 




June 13, 1912, — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 

... /, 

Mr. Clayton, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. J. Res. 325.] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration 
H. J, Res. 325, proposing an amendment to the Constitution, report the 
same back with the recommendation that it do pass. 

Your committee believe that the American people hold it to be 
part of the unwritten law that no man shall be three times President 
of the United States, whether the terms be consecutive or otherwise. 
Doubtless it is true that even without any positive law on the sub- 
ject — that is, without any amendment of the Constitution — no man 
will ever be called to be Chief Magistrate for the third time. It is 
certainly well, however, to provide against possible agitation of the 
question. Perhaps it is not too much to say that every President, 
with possibly two exceptions, has at least acquiesced in the fact that 
George Washington took a wise and patriotic position when he de- 
clined to entertain even the ambition of being President for a third 
time. And the American people denied a third term to President 
Grant, one of the world's great generals. So it may be said that 
the unwritten law, public sentiment, and the practice has been and 
will continue to be opposed to any man's being President for a third 
time. 

Your committee believe that it is wise to (1) limit the tenure of 
office to one term, and that it is also wise (2) to extend the period 
of the one term from four to six years. 

(1) The President should be ineligible to a second term, because 
being ineligible there will be no temptation improperly to use the 
powers and patronage of that exalted office. 

The limitation to a single term will, in the opinion of your com- 
mittee, tend to improve the administration of the laws generally and 
to increase the nonpartisan and businesslike efficiency of the execu- 



4 ONE SIX-YEAE PRESIDENTIAL TERM. 

then hereditary. I was much an enemy to monarchy before I came to Europe. 
1 am ten thousand times more so since I have seen what they are. There is 
scarcely an evil known in these countries which may not be traced to their 
king as its source, nor a good which is not derived from the small fibers of 
republicanism existing among them. I can further say with safety, there is 
not a crowned head in Europe whose talents or merit would entitle him to be 
elected a vestryman by the people of any parish in America. However, I shall 
hope that before there is danger of this change taking place in the office of 
President, the good sense and free spirit of our countrymen will make the 
changes necessary to prevent it. Under this hope, I look forward to the general 
adoption of the new Constitution with anxiety as necessary for us under our 
present circumstances." 

To Edward Carrington, May 27, 178S1 

" Reeligibility makes him (the President) an officer for life, and the disas- 
ters inseparable from an elective monarchy render it preferable, if we can not 
tread back that step, that we should go forward and take refuge in an hered- 
itary one. * * * Our jealousy is only put to sleep by the unlimited confi- 
dence we all repose in the person to whom we all look as our President. After 
him inferior characters may perhaps succeed and awaken us to the danger 
which his merit has led ns into. For the present, however, the general adoption 
is to be prayed for." 

To Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789: 

" Since the thing (reeligibility) is established, I would wish it not to be 
altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior 
to those, I believe, of any man in the world, and who alone, by the authority 
of his name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity, is fully qualified 
to put the new Government so under way as to secure it against the efforts of 
the opposition. But having derived from one error all the good there was in it, I 
hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name 
at the helm." 

To David Humphreys, March 18, 1789: 

" * * * And should the majority change their opinion and become sensible 
that this trait in their Constitution is wrong, I would wish it to remain uncor- 
rected as long as we can avail ourselves of the services of our great leader, 
whose talents and whose weight of character I consider as peculiarly essential 
to get the Government so under way as that it may afterwards be carried on 
by subordinate characters." 

Great men were the fathers of the Republic — great in their unselfishness and 
in their patriotism. At the very moment when uttering these sentiments from 
a troubled heart, Jefferson might with full warrant have been looking forward 
to his own elevation to the Chief Magistracy of the Republic, whose Declara- 
tion of Independence was his declaration. But here breathes the spirit of 
reconciliation, not in resentment of the probable thwarting of personal ambi- 
tion but in apprehension of danger to popular sovereignty — of reconciliation 
to the life tenure in office of the " great leader," but of no successor. And his 
was the thought of the country. Implicit and universal was the faith that 
Washington would rise to the occasion with the serenity and power of exalted 
character. How completely this confidence was justified is evidenced by the 
event. 

The crowning glory of George Washington was renunciation. Twice he had 
been chosen unanimously to serve as President of the new Republic. A third 
election required only his silent acquiescence. Abroad he was regarded as a 
Chief Magistrate installed for life — a constitutional king in all but name. 
Democracy meant no more than the familiar dominance of a ruler and a class 
in a new form. Government by the people continued to be a myth. Revolution 
had only severed political ties. The substance of control such as held the 
nations of Europe was to be perpetuated on the Western Hemisphere. Mon- 
archs breathed more freely; aristocracy sneered. Then came, like a bolt fi-om 
the blue, the declaration from George Washington that, at the expiration of his 
second term, he should return to private life. It was a calm and measured 
averment, but definite and final. None questioned the President's sincerity; 
none dreamed of suggesting reconsideration upon public or patriotic grounds 
in time of alleged need. Washington embodied Truth. His were words of 
probity and fidelity. And his act signalized the confirmation in fact of the pro- 
fession which had been advanced in theory of the perpetuation, no less than the 
mere establishment, of popular sovereignty. It was a notification to all the world 



ONE SIX-YEAR PRESIDENTIAL, TERM. 

of the actual beginning of tlie greatest experiment in government ever known, of 
tlie experiment whicli has conserved the liberties, the prosperity, and the hap- 
piness of a population already increased thirtyfold, which has driven arbitrary 
rule out of the Western Hemisphere, and which has cut the foundations from 
under the tottering thrones of Europe. 

Detractors have urged that, because he used simple words in announcing his 
retirement. Washington withdrew from public life for the sole purpose of grati- 
fying his personal inclination. Had he then so soon forgot the admonitions of 
Jefferson and Madison and his own steadfast opposition to continuous occu- 
pancy of the presidential oflice? How was his act regarded at the time? 

On September 17, 1796, Washington published to his " friends and fellow 
citizens " that farewell address, of which the historian Henry Cabot Lodge 
says: "Every word was instinct with the wisest and purest patriotism." After 
" declining to be considered among the number of those out of whom a choice 
is to be made " for President at the next election, he said : 

" 1 beg you at Ihe same time to do me the justice to be assured that this reso- 
lution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations 
appertaining to the relations which bind a dutiful citizen to his country ; and 
that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might 
imply, I am iniluenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no 
deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a 
full conviction that the step is compatible with both." 

Did the people or the Houses of Congress construe this as a mere expression 
of a wish to retire to Mount Vernon? Let us see. On December 10 the Senate 
voted " an address to George Washington, President of the United States," 
recounting his invaluable services and closing with these words : 

" The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are about to 
sustain arises from the animating reflection that the influence of your example 
will extend to jouv successors, and the United States thus continue to enjoy 
an able, upright, and energetic administration." 

And the House of Representatives on December 15 : 

" For our country's sake, for the sake of republican liberty, it is our earnest 
wish that your example may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after 
being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patrimony of 
our descendants." 

Both addresses were voted unanimously. The great precedent was made by 
the most illustrious man of his age and ratified irrevocably without dissenting 
voice by the chosen representatives of all the States and all the people. 

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as President in 1801 and was reelected. 
AVhen the date of the expiration of his second term drew near his party was in 
full control and Jefferson himself was at the height of his powers, mental and 
physical, as evidenced by the fact that he lived and studied and wrote for 19 
years thereafter. Nevertheless, when besought by the Legislature of Vermont 
to accept a third term, he replied, under date of December 10, 1807, as follows : 

"That 1 should lay down my charge at a proper period is as much a duty as 
to bave borne it faithfully. If some termination to the services of the Chief 
Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, 
nominally for years, will in fact become for life ; and history shows how easily 
that degenerates into an inheritance. Believing that a representative govern- 
ment responsible at short periods of election is that which produces the greatest 
sum of happiness to mankind, I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essen- 
tially impair that principle, and I should unwillingly be the person who, dis- 
regarding the sound precedent set by an illustrio.us predecessor, should furnish 
the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office." 

Despite the great popularity of Jefferson and the well-nigh universal belief 
that his knowledge and experience constituted an equipment surpassing that 
possessed by any other, his resolution met with general approval. Speaking 
to the citizens of Philadelphia on February 3, 1808, he said : 

" Your approbation of the motives for my retirement from the station so long 
confided to me is confirmation of their correctness. In no office can rotation be 
more expedient." 

Again to the citizens of Wilmington on February 10 : 

"It is a consolation to know that the motives for my retirement are ap- 
proved; and although I withdraw from public functions I shall continue an 
anxious spectator of passing events, and offer to Heaven my constant prayers 
for the preservation of our Republic, and especially of those its best principles 
which secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." 



6 ONE SIX-YEAE PRESIDENTIAL TEEM. 

Many years later, writing as the venerable sage of Monticello, he empha- 
sized the increased strength of his conviction in his autobiography with notable 
explicitness thus : 

"My wish was that the President should be elected for seven years and be 
ineligible afterwards. But the practice adopted, I think, is better, allowing his 
continuance for eight years, with a liability to be dropped at half-way of the 
term, making rhat a period of probation. * * * Though this amendment 
has not been made in form, yet practice seems to have established it. The 
example of four Presidents voluntarily retiring at the end of their eighth 
year, and the progress of public opinion that the principle is salutary, have 
given it in practice the form of precedent and usage ; insomuch that should a 
President consent to be a candidate for a third election, I trust he would be 
rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views." 

The four Presidents to whom Jefferson referred were Washington, himself, 
Madison, and Monroe, the last of whom was so popular that but one electoral 
vote was cast against his reelection. Neither he nor Madison, however, even 
contemplated for a moment the breaking of the tradition which they consid- 
ered had already become an inviolable edict. 

Andrew Jackson, the next President who achieved reelection, was a stickler 
for forms in written law. From the beginning to near the end of his terms, 
in specific language, he urged upon Congress the enactment of a statute defi- 
nitely forbidding a third election. His appeal was disregarded solely upon the 
groimd that the effect of the established precedent was fully binding and that 
further action was unnecessary. In this judgment Jackson finally acquiesced 
and in his last annual message he did not revert to the subject. That he aban- 
doned the idea of definite prohibition with reluctance, however, and that he 
still viewed technical reeligibility with apprehension is indicated by the solemn 
warning contained in his farewell address — to wit : 

" You have no longer any cause to fear danger from abroad ; your strength 
and power are well known throughout the civilized world, as well as the high 
and gallant bearing of your sons. It is from within, among yourselves— from 
cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst 
for power — that factions will be formed and liberty endangered. It is against 
such designs, whatever disguise the actors may assume, that you have espe- 
cially to guard yourseh^es." 

The first attempt to break the rule thus established was made in 1875. 
Grant's second administration was drawing to a close, and the masterful clique 
which surrounded him and practically controlled his acts disclosed a purpose 
to obtain for their chief a third ternx' Instantly a storm of protestations arose 
and was crystallized finally in the following resolution adopted by the House 
of Representatives on December 15, 1875 : 

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the precedent established by 
Washington and other Presidents of the United States in retiring from the 
presidential oflice after their second term has become, by universal concur- 
rence, a part of our republican system of government, and that any departure 
from this time-honored custom will be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with 
peril to our free institutions." 

The A^ote was nearly unanimous — 233 to 18 — and was so, strongly indorsed 
by the country that the schemers abandoned their project. / 

Four years later the attempt was renewed with great vigor. Grant's popu- 
larity had been enhanced materially by his receptions abroad; the difficulty 
of retaining the power which had been held only by chicanery in 1876 was 
uppermost in the minds of the Repul^licans ; and Roscoe Conkling was at the 
height of his fame and dominance./ The issue was joined upon the insistence 
that the rule applied only to consecutive terms — a plea then entered for the 
first time, obviously to fit the casey/ Despite the common belief that only 
Grant could save their party from (fefeat, thousands of patriotic Republicans 
united in a determined effort to maintain the ancient tradition in its full integ- 
rity. Already the Republicans of New York, in convention assembled, had 
declared their " unalterable opposition to the election of any President for a 
third term." The Republicans of Massachusetts had resolved : 

" That sound reason, as well as the wise and unbroken usage of the Republic, 
illustrated by the example of Washington, requires that the tenure of the 
Chief Magistracy of the United States shall not exceed a second term." 

The Republicans of Pennsylvania had recorded : 

" That we declare a firm and unqualified adherence to the unwritten law of 
the Republic, which wisely and under the sanction of the most venerable of 



ONE SIX-YEAH PRESIDENTIAL l^EM. 7 

examples limits the presidential service of any citizen to two terms; and we, 
tlie Republicans of Pennsylvania, in recognition of this law, are unalterably 
opposed to the election to the Presidency of any person for a third term." 

The Republicans of Kansas had pronounced judgment : 

" That the unwritten law enacted by the example of the Father of his 
Country in declining a reelection to a third term is as controlling as though it 
was incorporated in the National Constitution and ought never to be violated." 

To supplement and emphasize these expressions a national convention of 
Republicans . opposed to a third term was held in St. Louis on May 6, 1880. 
The following preamble to appropriate resolutions was adopted unanimously: 

" In pursuance of the demand, and representing the convictions of what we 
believe to be a majority of the Republican Party throughout the Union, this 
convention of Republicans has assembled for the purpose of declaring those 
convictions with reference to the present aspect of political affairs. This action 
is necessary in view of the determined efforts to force upon the party the 
nomination of a candidate for the Presidency for a third term in defiance not 
only of the traditions of the Government but also of the solemn declarations 
of the Republican Party through its conventions in the largest and con- 
trolling Republican States, reaffirmed by its Representatives in the popular 
branch of Congress, and adopted by the entire party in the declarations of its 
latest presidential candidate." 

Subsequently, despite the tremendous forces brought into action on his be- 
half, Grant was rejected by the Republican convention, and the unwritten law, 
which had already been upheld by the unanimous vote of the Democrats in 
Congress, was now definitely and officially sustained by the Republican Party. 

President McKinley was inaugurated a second time on March 4, 1901. On 
June 10 of that year he made the following proclamation directly to the 
people : 

" I regret that the suggestion of a third term has been made. I doubt 
whether I am called upon to give to it notice, but there are new questions of 
the gravest importance before the administration and the country, and their just 
consideration should not be prejudiced in the public mind by even the suspicion 
of the thought of a third term. 

" In view, therefore, of the reiteration of the suggestion of it I will now say, 
once for all, expressing a long-settled conviction, that I not only am not and 
will not be a candidate for a third term, but I would not accept a nomination 
for it if it were tendered to me. 

" My only ambition is to serve through my second term to the acceptance of 
my countrymen, whose generous confidence I so deeply appreciate, and then 
with them to do my duty in the ranks of private citizenship. — (William 
McKinley)." 

That, in conformity with the solemn pledge of his party made in 1880, 
President McKinley rejected the subterfuge of " nonconsecutive " terms is 
clearly evidenced in his concluding sentence. That he regarded the tradition 
Itself as binding he left no room for doubt. Immediately after the Cabinet 
council in which the President's announcement was discussed. Postmaster 
General Charles Emory Smith said : 

" In taking this step President McKinley has not only followed his personal 
inclinations, but he is actuated by a deep sense of duty and by his belief in a 
principle of our institutions which he thinks absolute and unchangeable." 

The statement of John D. Long, the Secretary of the Navy, was to the same 
effect : 

" I am satisfied that personally he did not desire nor would he have been 
willing to accept a third tei'm. After eight years of the burdens and re- 
sponsibilities of office he looks forward to the relief of private life. 

"As a matter of principle and conviction also he would not accept a third 
term, and he evidently felt it his duty to confirm the traditions of his country 
in this respect. This action of his, I believe, will do more than anything else 
can do to settle this question for all time." 

Emulating his predecessor's example, President Roosevelt declared his fidelity 
to the established custom with characteristic promptitude. On the evening of 
the day on which he was reelected — November 8, 1904 — he issued this care- 
fully phrased statement : 

" On the 4th of March next I shall have served three and one-half years, 
and this three and one-half years constitute my first term. The wise custom 
which limits the President to two terms regards the substance and not the 



8 ONE SIX-YEAE PRESIDENTIAL TEEM. 

form, and under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another 
nomination." 

Three years later — on December 11, 1907 — ^he reiterated his declaration in 
these words : 

" I have not changed and shall not change that decision thus announced." 

This action upon the part of President Roosevelt was duly celebrated and 
heartily applauded in the ensuing Republican convention in 1908, when the 
chairman, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, declared, with marked fervor : 

" Nothing has added so much to his just fame as his persistent and irrev- 
ocable refusal to break the unwritten law of the Republic by accepting a 
nomination for a third term. By this act of self-abnegation he places his name 
and fame in the secure keeping of history by the side of that of the immortal 
Washington." 

This completes the record of the great tradition which has been held inviolate 
for 116 years. Of the most sagacious commentators upon American institutions, 
De Tocqueville strongly urged its establishment and James Bryce pronounced 
its unbroken maintenance conclusive. In the American Commonwealth, Mr. 
Bryce says: 

" Washington submitted to be reelected in 1792. But when he had served 
this second term he absolutely refused to serve a third, urging the risk to 
republican institutions of suffering the same man to continue constantly in 
office. * * * III tiie Republican Party convention of 1880 a powerful group 
of the delegates put forward Grant for nomination as the party candidate, 
alleging his special services as a ground for giving him the honor of a third 
term. Had there not been among the Republicans themselves a section per- 
sonally hostile to Grant, or rather to those who surrounded him, the attempt 
inight have succeeded, though it would probably have involved defeat at the 
polls. But this hostile section found the prepossession of the people against 
a third term so strong that, by appealing to the established tradition, they 
defeated the Grant men in the convention. This precedent has been taken as 
practically decisive for the future, because Gen. Grant, though his adminis- 
tration had been marked by grave faults, was an exceptionally popular figure. 
A principle affirmed against him is not likely to be departed from in favor of 
any aspirant for many elections to come." 

And yet Mr. Roosevelt is now an avowed candidate for a third term. The 
" act of self-abnegation," marked by his " persistent and irrevocable refusal 
to break the unwritten law of the Republic," thus " placing his name and fame 
in the secure keeping of history by the side of that of the immortal Wash- 
ington," is repudiated and the beneficent consequences thereof are forfeited 
beyond recall. That fact of itself, since it bears merely upon the reputation for 
mental and moral integrity of an individual, is of comparatively little moment. 
But the basis of, or rather the pretext for, the attempt to break down the 
established tradition is of vital importance. Mr. Roosevelt sets it forth in 
tiiese words: 
/ " My position is perfectly clear. I stated it as clearly as I could in 1904 
^ and reiterated it in 1907. I said that I would not accept a nomination for a 
third term under any circumstances, meaning, of course, a third consecutive 
term. 

"^-^ould not have said less at the time, nor could I have said more. Of 
course, I could not then know whether or not there would be a demand for me 
to accept a nomination at some future time. And believing as I do, that the 
selection of candidates for the Presidency rests entirely with the people, I 
could not say that at no time in my life would I accept another nomination." 

This is simply ridiculous. Surely Mr. Roosevelt could have said less ; he 
need not have said anything. There was no public or private demand that he 
should declare his resolution. His utterance, in fact, evoked general surprise 
quite equal to the gratification which it afforded those who had professed faith 
in his fidelity to principle and law, written or unwritten, with regard no less to 
" substance " than to " form." How idle, moreover, to assert that he could 
not have said more I If it was his real intent to limit his renunciation to a 
third " consecutive " term, the addition of a single word would have made his 
meaning clear. 

That Mr. Roosevelt " could not then know " whether or not there would be 
a demand for him to "accept a nomination at some future time" is obvious; 
so obvious indeed, that clearly he could not then have known whether such 
a demand might not arise at the end of his second term ; in which case, " believ- 



ONE SIX-YEAE, PRESIDENTIAL. TERM. 9 

ing that the selection of candidates rests entirely with the people," would he 
have felt impelled to attribute yet another inconceivable spirit to the letter of 
Ms pledge? And why could not he say that at no time would he accept another 
nomination? No such embarrassment confronted Washington, Jefferson, Madi- 
son, Monroe, Jackson, or McKinley, though no one of those defined his attitude 
with half the explicitness or emphasis employed by President Roosevelt. 

Apologists assert that Mr. Roosevelt has merely " changed his mind " in con- 
formity with his undoubted right. Not so Mr. Roosevelt himself! With re- 
doubled vigor he insists that he is of the same opinion still — that opinion being, 
of course, not the opinion stated, but the opinion privately held for subsequent 
interpretation by himself. 

But the tergiversations of a fantastic intellect sink into insignificance when 
contrasted with the theory upon which this apparent reversal of position is 
,Msed. Mr. Roosevelt continues : 

" It must be clear to any reasonable man that the precedent which forbids a 
third term has reference only to a third consecutive term. It grew out of the 
fact that a President of the United States under the present convention system 
of electing delegates can, if he knows how to use the machinery at his disposal, 
renominate himself, even though the majority of his party is against him. But 
after he has been out of office for a term he has lost control of that machinery. 
He is in the position absolutely of any private citizen. The inachinery is then 
in the hands of the man occupying the office of President." / 

On the contrary, " it must be clear " to any person faminar with our political 
history, or to anyone who has read the foregoing record, that the precedent 
forbidding a third term bears no reference whatever to " the present convention 
system of electing delegates." The precedent was established by Washington 
in 1796, was recognized by both Houses of Congress, was confirmed by Jefferson, 
was accepted by Madison and Monroe, and was ratified with great positiveness 
by Jackson before a national convention was ever held or conceived of. Its 
purpose, plainly set forth, Avas to limit the duration of any man's service as 
President to eight years, " with a liability to be dropped at halfway of the 
term." None of these great Presidents ever contemplated the possibility of re- 
turning to his former position after a lapse of years in retirement. Each recog- 
nized "the wise custom " and adhered strictly to the determination tersely 
expressed by Mr. Roosevelt himself " not to be a candidate for or accept another 
nomination " at any time during the remainder of his life. 

So much for Mr. Roosevelt's attempt to revive the nonconsecutive subterfuge, 
which was raised by the supporters of Grant and met its logical fate in the 
Republican convention of 1880. 

We need not dwell longer upon the shuffling evasions and paltry excuses of 
Mr. Roosevelt. Far more important are the explanatory defenses of those of 
his supporters who are supposed to be more fully endowed with the sense of 
moral discrimination. One in particular must not pass unnoticed. A famous 
and revered teacher of religion, whose name shall find no place here in connec- 
tion with the promulgation of such a code, puts forth the following " homely 
illustration " of Mr. Roosevelt's ethical methods : 

" When a man says at breakfast in the morning, ' No, thank you, I will not 
take any more cofl'ee,' it does not mean that he will not take any more coffee 
to-morrow morning or next week or next month or next year." 

The imperfection of the analogy is apparent. Mr. Roosevelt was offered noth- 
ing, declined nothing. Clearly, since he had not yet even entered upon his sec- 
ond term, he was speaking not of the present, but of the future. Regard for 
the merest approach toward accuracy should have impelled his vindicator to 
present his homely and no less amazing illustration in Avords such as these : 

"When a man says at breakfast in the morning, 'The wise custom which, 
in consideration of the public health, forbids one in my position to set a harmful 
example by partaking of more coffee regards the substance and not the form, 
and under no circumstances will I seek or accept another cup.' " 

Even so, however, there would remain for use in case of need the somewhat 
antiquated doctrine of mental reservation — obviously the only one which could 
justify to a teacher of morals a contrary interpretation of an explicit pledge. 
What the good divine would say to a man convicted of adultery who should 
plead, " Truly, I pledged fidelity, but that did not mean that I should be faithful 
the next day, the next week, or the next year," we can not venture to imagine. 
Pertinent admonitions without number might be quoted from the Good Book, 
but adequate treatment of ethical perversion arising from a personal obsession 



10 ONE SIX-YEAR PRESIDENTIAL TERM. 

would involve the application of principles of psychology to an extent far too 
painful in the present deplorable instance for contemplation. 

But we are told that if a third term be considered pernicious, a like objection 
must apply to a second term. The answer, of course, is that acceptance of a 
second term and rejection of a third term are equally confirmed as rightful 
and proper by the usage of a century. 

Why, we are asked, was not the prohibition incorporated in our written Con- 
stitution? And why should heed be paid to a " mere sentiment "? The answer 
to the first question, we believe, will be found conclusive in the record pre- 
sented above. History responds to the other. Our Saxon ancestors owed their 
freedom to the preservation of their customs, such as now constitute the funda- 
mental law of England. Few of those customs were as firmly established as 
this one of ours by uninterrupted use and universal approval of people and 
Presidents for more than a hundred years, but they were customs generally 
acquiesced in, and therefore laws which safeguarded their rights against the 
encroachments of monarchy. When a king undertook, with the aid of his 
parasites, to force a surrender of those rights, the barons gave him " that memo- 
rable answer, simple, to be sure, but made sublime by the occasion " ; 

" Nolumus leges Anglise mutare ! " 

(" We will not change the laws of England ! ") 

This was the dictum that Grant received from the Congress of 1875 and 
from the Republican convention of 1880 vv^hen he and his parasites tried to 
force the abandonment of a custom which had become a "part of our free 
institutions." 

But Grant did not recognize the validity of the law. Roosevelt does — or did. 
His attitude, as of to-day if not as of " to-morrow or next week or next year," 
is favorable to the maintenance of the " wise custom," with, however, a 
" mental reservation " which allows an exception in time of stress or imagined 
need. This, his supporters declare, is such a time, and in justification of their 
conduct they adduce the ^following segregated sentence from Washington's 
letter to Lafayette in 1788 : 

" I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any 
man who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally most capable of 
serving the public." 

Eight years later, speaking from a vision broadened by actual experience, 
Washington defined his words by his acts. That he was " universally deemed 
the most capable " there can be no question. And there was no lack of "emer- 
gencies " in the putting into eft'6ctive practice of the theories of the new gov- 
ernment and in a threatening of war with France. Nevertheless, he volun- 
tarily withdrew to private life and thereby set " an example " which has 
indeed become " the patrimony of our descenuants." 

What, then, is the " great emergency " which now confronts the Nation and 
demands the violation not only of a sacred tradition, but of the personal pledge 
of an American President to the American people? We are not engaged in a 
mighty war, such as undoubtedly Washington had in mind in 1788, as consti- 
tuting exceptional necessity. We are at peace with all the world and, under 
the guidance of our present Chief Magistrate, are leaders of a world-wide 
movement to insure pacific relations among all peoples. Laws are being 
enforced more consistently and are respected more highly than at any time since 
the Civil War. Our serious internal problems are in process of solution by 
use of the adequate methods provided by our fundamental law. But for con- 
stant agitation by ambitious and unscrupulous demagogues, there would be no 
more of unrest than is natural to a great and rapidly increasing population. 
There is no plague of pauperism or poverty. The physical, mental, and moral 
condition of our whole people is infinitely superior to that of any other. Surely 
no " great emergency " now actually exists. 

Is it, then, in anticipation of a mighty crisis about to arise that a violent 
wrench in our governmental system is deemed essential to the preservation of 
our lives, our properties, and our liberties? And who is the man " universally 
deemed most capable of serving the public " ? Is it Roosevelt? Do all the 
people consider that he is better equipped than Taft, let us say, to deal with 
the troublesome conditions in Mexico, in Cuba, in Porto Rica, in China? Does 
anybody of intelligence? Do all the people think Roosevelt is more capable 
or more desirous than Taft of enforcing the laws against pillaging corporations? 
Has he so shown himself? Do all the people regard Roosevelt as purer in 
thought, word, and deed than Taft, as more manly, more straightforward, more 
sagacious, more patient, more unselfish, more devoted to his fellows, more com- 



ONE SIX- YEAR PRESIDENTIAL TERM. - H 

petent, because of temperament, disposition, even manners, to meet all crises 
or any crisis that may arise? Is he more sincere? Is he more honest? Is he 
more truthful? Is he more dependable? Is he a better American? Is he, in 
fine, the possessor of a single attribute, desirable in a Chief Magistrate, not 
held in superior measure by Mr. Taft? 

There can be but one answer to these questions. There is no " great emer- 
gency " and there is no " universal demand " for a revival of the explosive 
gyrations w^hich made Roosevelt's administration as grotesque in the eyes of 
the world as it was, in effect, unavailing at home. 

What, then, is the ultimate object of those who now give color to the claim 
that our most cherished tradition must be trampled under foot in order that a 
personal ambition may be served, a personal vengefulness gratified? Why these 
desperate efforts to advance a movement from which even the warmest friends 
of the eager recipient have recoiled in disgust? Is emotional fervor, unham- 
pered by reason, the actuating motive? Of some deluded persons, no doubt. 
But what of " the seven governors " who heedlessly incite warfare upon estab- 
lished institutions and urge upon the populace a fancied need to tear away the 
foundations of representative government? Are they merely ignorant, or are 
they, too, like the noted divine, obsessed by a spectacular personality? Surely 
they must be aware that they are engaged in a conspiracy to wipe out the Con- 
stitution once for aU and to have done with its restraints upon arbitrary power. 
So much they have been told plainly by their standard bearer. Even though 
the treasonable words had not been uttered in Columbus, these men can not yet 
have forgotten that, while President, Roosevelt never so much as stopped to 
inquire what was in the Constitution which he had sworn to protect, preserve, 
and defend ; that if he had taken an oath to destroy it, his hostility could not 
have been more pronounced ; that his one idea of government was a system of 
absolutism without law, giving him full power to reward those who had con- 
tributed to his own success and to punish those who had not ; that all authority 
not explicitly withheld by written law was his and his alone. Assuredly, the 
'* seven governors " knew all this. And yet even now, when in so many words 
their leader proposes to obliterate the judiciary in particular and representative 
government in general, they continue to wave the flag whose advancement as a 
signal of triumph could spell only Csesarism or anarchy. To all such we com- 
mend earnest perusal of the words of one whose mantle has been grasped with 
ruthless hands by the apostle of impudence;>^''On January 27, 1832, in Spring- 
field, 111., Abraham Lincoln rose and spoke as follows : 

"Ambitious men will spring up who will find no gratification in supporting 
and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others. Towering genius 
disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It scorns to 
tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It throbs and 
burns for distinction, and, if possible, it will have it. 

" When such a man appears it will require the people to be united with each 
other, attached to government and laws, and generally intelligent, to success- 
fully frustrate his designs. 

" Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he will as willingly — 
perhaps more so — acquire it by doing good as harm, yet that opportunity being 
present, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set 
boldly to the task of pulling down." 

Such an one has sprung up and iS/tiow appealing to the mob. We anticipate 
the consequences of his audacious ''action with the utmost complacency. Be- 
trayal of a friend might be overlooked. Disdain of fundamental law is the 
natural sprout of a lawless mind, and, in time of excitement, might pass unre- 
buked. But we live in implicit faith that never will the American people 
repudiate their splendid tradition, their lex legum, which stands as the uncon- 
querable fortress of popular government against personal aggrandizement, and 
bears a relationship to civilization akin to that to all humanity of the great 
unwritten law of nature, whose " seat is in the bosom of God and whose voice 
is the harmony of the world." 

The Editor. 



[H. J. Res. 325. Sixty-second Congress, second session.] 
JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Resolved Ijy the Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled {tioo-thirds of each House concurring therein), 
That the following be proposed as an amendment to the first paragraph of sec- 



12 ONE SIX-YEAE PRESIDENTIAL TEEM. 

tion one of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which will be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by 
the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, namely : Amend said paragraph 
to read as follows : 

" The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of 
America. He shall hold his office during the term of six years ; and no person 
who has held the office by election, or who has acted as President under the 
Constitution or any law made in pursuance thereof shall ever again be eligible 
to hold said office. 

" The President, together with the Vice President chosen for the same term, 
shaU be elected as follows :" 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 1S3 482 0^ 



